E 695 
.S84 
Copy 1 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE 
STOLEN ? 



BY 

FRANCIS LYNDE STETSON 

AND 
WILLIAM GORHAM RICE 



[Subject headings for cataloguing this pamphlet : 
'Presidential Elections," "Grover Cleveland," "James G. Blaine"] 



REPRINTED FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 
FOR JANUARY, 1914 



NEW YORK 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW PUBLISHING CO. 



ELM 



Copyright, 1913. by 
The North American Review Publishing Co. 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE STOLEN? 

BY WILLIAM GORHAM RICE AND FRANCIS LYNDE STETSON 



Can the electoral vote of New York State be stolen 1 ? 
Did such a theft occur in 1884? Was the will of the people 
then criminally perverted and did Democracy come into 
power at Cleveland's first election with a fraudulent title 
to the Presidency? 

These questions arise for the reason that doubt of the 
honesty of the declared result of the Presidential vote of 
New York in 1884 has been announced recently by a writer 
of considerable reputation. Even if not supported by evi- 
dence, a suspicion of this kind put forth by responsible 
authority is not unlikely to have some weight when in the 
future the story of our own times comes to be written. 
Especially may this occur if the allegation remains uncon- 
troverted and secures without challenge a place in the 
record of the present. A statement expressing such a 
doubt seems, therefore, to deserve consideration at this 
time and to warrant reply from representatives of those 
who had close association with the first election of Mr. 
Cleveland and direct knowledge of the events of that cam- 
paign. 

It is true that immediately after that election a few bitter 
partisans of minor consequence and some subordinate office- 
holders, who through undisturbed occupation for twenty- 
four years had come to look upon government place as a 
private perquisite, indulged in a recreation perhaps fairly 
to be characterized as " swearing at the Court." Some 
newspaper writers, too, whose election predictions had 
gone wrong, and other men who had made wagers and lost, 
apparently found mitigation of their disappointment in 
claiming that there were frauds in the count. Where these 



80 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 

frauds were they did not attempt to specify, but consoled 
themselves with vague and undefined accusations. After 
a little time, however, virtually all these accusers ad- 
mitted fair defeat and the trustworthiness of the returns 
showing Cleveland's election was accepted by unprejudiced 
and carefully informed men throughout the country. In 
the State of New York where the issue particularly arose 
and where all the facts were best known there was a uni- 
versal conclusion that a truthful result had been declared. 

Though generally conversant with all that has been writ- 
ten about Mr. Cleveland, I had never seen this charge of 
dishonesty as to the declared vote of New York supported 
by name until the publication of an article entitled " Elec- 
tion Superstitions and Fallacies " by Edward Stanwood, 
in the Atlantic Monthly for October, 1912. Mr. Stanwood 
is a well-known writer whose reputation as a publicist has 
been largely established by hisr History of the Presidency. 
He is also the author of a Tariff History of the United 
States, written from the protectionist point of view, it is 
true, but esteemed upon the whole accurate even by those 
who are adverse to the protectionist theory. Mr. Stanwood 
presented something more than vague and unsubstantial 
accusation and, accordingly, on October 8th, I wrote him: 

Dear Sir, — In the article " Election Superstitions and Fallacies "... 
you say, " there is a strong probability at least that he (Blaine) did actu- 
ally have a plurality of the votes honestly cast in that State (New York)." 
Will you kindly refer me to the evidence which has led you to this con- 
clusion ? 

I was well acquainted with the election procedure in the State of New 
York at that time, and I have never seen evidence to make me doubt the 
absolute accuracy of the count (of 1884), and until your statement I had 
not supposed that such count was questioned by any well-informed man. 

Yours very truly, 

William Gorham Rice. 

Mr. Stanwood, on October 11th, replied: 

My dear Sir, — I am unable to present any definite information to justify 
my statement that the vote of New York was fraudulently counted for Mr. 
Cleveland in 1884. In the nature of things such information, properly to 
be termed evidence, is impossible. But I am surprised that you should 
think that the count was not "questioned by any well-informed man," for 
it was most emphatically questioned by many. To my certain knowledge 
it was questioned by Mr. Blaine himself, but he was well aware that there 
was no way in which it could be investigated, and he would not have sanc- 
tioned an investigation if there had been a way to make it. 

You probably do not know that I was, all my life, intimately connected 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE STOLEN? 81 

with Mr. Blaine, as a cousin of his wife, as a fellow-townsman, as secre- 
taiy of the Republican State Committee of Maine when lie was the chair- 
man, and in many other ways, and that I wrote his biography for a volume 
in the American Statesman series. I venture to append the remarks I 
made in that volume on the result of the election (page 291) : 

" New York was counted for Cleveland, but there were then, and are 
now, few Republicans cognizant of the facts who doubt that a plurality of 
votes was actually cast for Mr. Blaine. It was openly charged at the time. 
and commonly believed by Republicans, although Democrats warmly 
denied it, that in many precincts of New York City the votes for Butler 
were counted for Cleveland. The conviction, a few years later, of the un- 
scrupulous boss of a town near New York, on a charge of falsifying elec- 
tion returns, confirmed in their opinion those who held the view that Blaine 
was really elected." 

That, of course, is neither evidence nor an approach to evidence; but it 
does at least — so I think — justify the sentence from my article which you 
quote. The facts that the counting was in the hands of Mr. Blaine's 
opponents; that the opportunity to falsify the result existed; that such 
falsification had been practised on other occasions; and that there were 
many men in charge of the counting who were not above making false re- 
turns, all these things combine to suggest at least that when a national 
election could be carried by a reversal of 575 votes, the suspicion is not 
unreasonable. Yours truly, Edward Stanwood. 

Before Mr. Stanwood 's and other similar accusations 
are taken up in detail and the process is considered by 
which the result of the election in question was ascertained 
in New York State, the situation there will be better compre- 
hended by recalling some incidents of the Presidential cam- 
paign in 1884 which I have elsewhere related. 

It was Grover Cleveland's courage and rectitude as shown 
in his public acts as Mayor and Governor that led to his 
first nomination for President. He drew to his support pro- 
gressive-minded men from all parts of the country, many of 
whom previously had had no identification with, or even 
had been actively in antagonism to, the Democratic party. 
Opposed to him was James G. Blaine, who had long been 
conspicuous in public affairs, who had been Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, and who had secured the nomina- 
tion after many years of aspiration and of devoted effort 
on the part of ardent admirers. At the close of his nation- 
wide speaking tour, just before Election Day, Mr. Blaine 
had passed through New York City. He was there long- 
enough, however, to receive a clerical delegation whose 
spokesman, addressing him as the opponent of " Rum, 
Romanism, and Rebellion," had met with neither immediate 
rebuke nor contradiction. 

vol. cxcix. — no. 698 6 



82 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 

As Assistant Secretary to Governor Cleveland I had 
direct knowledge of his campaign, and it so happened that I 
was particularly associated with the events of and immedi- 
ately following Election Day. That day generally ends the 
Presidential campaign, but it was not so when the first ex- 
tended control of national affairs by the Republican party 
, ceased. In 1884, after a campaign perhaps unequaled in 
party heat from beginning to end — and in which the last 
week had been particularly exciting because of the incident 
referred to above — when the polls had closed interest sud- 
denly intensified, and flamed up and centered upon the vital 
question of which candidate had carried New York State. 
The election there, it clearly appeared, was close, phenome- 
nally close. A few hundred votes either way would deter- 
mine it, To which side would the balance go? If in the one 
direction, Democracy after its long exclusion from power 
would be triumphant in the nation. If in the other, Repub- 
licanism would remain dominant. At once remembrance of 
the Tilden-Hayes controversy became vivid. Again the coun- 
try was confronted with the dangers of a disputed title to the 
Presidency. Again the possibility even of civil war was in 
men's minds. 

Mr. Cleveland, after casting his vote in Buffalo early on 
Election Day, had returned to the Executive Mansion at 
Albany. Tn the evening with a few intimate friends gathered 
about him he received the returns there. Congratulatory 
telegrams began to pour in soon after the polls closed, but 
while these despatches and friendly newspaper bulletins 
were claiming New York State for him by many thousands, 
few satisfactory detailed figures were received. There was 
no telegraph wire at the Executive Mansion, and even the 
telephone early went out of commission that night in a 
rain-storm which as the hours progressed became almost 
a deluge. Messengers were the only means of contact with 
:the outside world. In this situation I went to the Albany 
Argus newspaper office and from the working press wire 
there began before long to get fairly exact, though frag- 
mentary, returns. Assembling these in partial totals, I soon 
reached a conclusion which was at variance with the then 
general. opinion that New York State had given a large ma- 
jority for Mr. Cleveland. My conclusion was based upon 
percentages of comparative gain over other years as shown 
by the exact figures from scattered election districts both 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE STOLEN? 83 

in cities and in rural communities. While the drift seemed 
constantly and surely favorable to Mr. Cleveland, it was-' so 
slight that I was satisfied his majority would not be oyer 
2,000. This rather startling conclusion I wrote out,- with 
condensed figures sustaining it, and sent it by special 'mes- 
senger to the Governor's Secretary, Colonel Lainont,, who 
was with Mr. Cleveland at the Executive Mansion'.' The 
situation immediately became the subject of careful' con- 
sideration there by the four or five men who had been in 
particularly close touch with the contest in New York State, 
and soon after midnight we sent the following telegrams to 
two or more prominent Democrats in virtually every county 
of the State : 

The only hope of our opponents is in a fraudulent count in the coun- 
try districts. Call to your assistance to-day vigilant aud courageous 
friends, and see that every vote cast is honestly counted. Telegraph me' 
at once your estimate, and let me hear from you from time to time until 
actual figures are known. Daniel Manning. 

Mr. Manning was the Chairman of the Democratic State 
Committee, but he was not at the Executive Mansion, and 
his name was used without consultation with him. In fact, 
he knew nothing of the telegram until replies began to come 
in. Later telegrams to citizens of the highest standing 
urged them to go to the Clerk's office in their respective 
counties, to remain there until returns were filed, and then 
to obtain certified copies of such returns and to send these 
copies by special messenger to Albany. Gradually semi- 
official returns were collected at the Executive Chamber 
in Albany, and Mr. Cleveland's assured majority in the 
State was more accurately known there than anywhere else. 
The exact majority determined finally by the State Canvass- 
ing Board in the following December was 1,047. 

When our Executive Chamber tabulation of detailed re- 
turns was finished, and Mr. Cleveland was satisfied that the 
totals told the truth, he sent this telegram, November 6th, 
to a friend: 

I believe I have been elected President, and nothing but grossest fraud 
can keep me out of it, and that we will not permit. 

But it was not until later in the week when the Manager 
of the Western Union Telegraph Company at Albany de- 
livered into Mr. Cleveland's own hands a message received 



84 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 

over a special wire that the situation was relieved of doubt. 
That message was in these words : 

Governor Cleveland, — I heartily congratulate you on your election. 
All concede that your administration as Governor has been wise and con- 
servative, and in the larger field as President I feel that you will do 
still better, and that the vast business interests of the country will be 
entirely safe in your hands. Jay Gould. 

Coming from the most conspicuous of his opponent's sup- 
porters — from one who was the head and center of the 
group of interests which had continued to claim that oppo- 
nent's election, it satisfied Mr. Cleveland that the contest 
was over and the victory won. 

How the call of the telegram of Election night was obeyed, 
and how implicitly the canvass of the vote deserves to be 
trusted, is told in pages following by Mr. Stetson, who 
largely organized and directed the special protective meas- 
ures which were continued until the declaration of the vote 
of New York State. It was the prompt, intelligent, and de- 
voted efforts of the group of men of which he was one 
that preserved inviolate and unsullied for the Democracy 
of the Union a victory in what may well be considered the 
most important election of recent years. Defeat in 1884 
assuredly would have seriously weakened the vitality of 
historic Democracy as a party in the United States. Suc- 
cess in 1884 established that party anew, and as a sequence 
brought into effective relationship a body of younger men 
of high political ideals whose maturer association had no 
small influence in the Democratic success of 1912. 

This preliminary part of the history of the Presidential 
count of 1884 in New York State, I believe, cannot be con- 
cluded better than with the words concerning the Stanwood 
letter spoken to me late in October, 1912, at Princeton, by 
Mrs. Cleveland: " You and I know," she said, " the Presi- 
dency would have possessed no interest for Mr. Cleveland 
had he felt there was the remotest taint upon his title." 

William Goeham Rice. 

II 

The " group of men " referred to by Mr. Rice as watch- 
ing the canvass in the City of New York was assembled un- 
der the authority of the following letter to me from the 
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Dem- 
ocratic Committee under date of Thursday, November 6th: 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE STOLEN? 85 

Dear Sir, — In view of the fact that the Democratic electoral ticket 
in the State of New York has been chosen by a narrow majority, which 
may possibly be disputed by the Republicans, and sought to be reversed, 
I have the honor to request that you will take steps to organize a com- 
mittee of the bar to guard the rights of the people before the boards 
of canvassers throughout the State, and thus secure an honest count. I 
venture to urge prompt action and to appeal to the patriotism of the bar, 
which has never yet failed to assert and protect the liberties of the people. 

If you consent to act, kindly meet me at my room, No. 71, Fifth 
Avenue Hotel, at 8 p.m. Yours very truly, 

A. P. Gorman, 
C. Ex. C. 

In response to an appeal on the basis of this letter fifty 
or more Democrats and Independents eminent at the bar of 
New York immediately offered their services, and during 
the next ten days devoted themselves to the supervision of 
the count throughout the State. Their energies did not 
relax until upon November 16th the New York Tribune con- 
ceded the election of Mr. Cleveland. 

My own part was at the Hoffman House headquarters, 
where I was in charge, under the direction of William C. 
Whitney, having the continuous assistance and advice of 
Roscoe Conkling, and the occasional counsel of Carl Schurz 
and James C. Carter, all being in constant touch with the 
situation and informed as to all that was going on. They 
were all impressed, and so declared themselves, with the 
obvious fairness and frankness of the procedure and with 
the manifest determination of all that, whatever the conse- 
quences, this election should be decided according to the 
vote actually deposited in the boxes. That such was the 
result, and that Mr. Cleveland actually and honestly carried 
the State of New York by more than 1,000 plurality, I have 
not the slightest doubt, and I know that my opportunities 
ftor knowledge were better than those of Mr. Stanwood, and 
also better than those of Senator Hoar or of any of the 
anonymous cynical Senators quoted by him in his Autobiog- 
raphy (Vol. I, p. 408), as follows: 

I suppose it would hardly be denied now by persons acquainted with 
the details of the management of the Democratic Campaign, at any rate 
I have heard the fact admitted by several very distinguished Democratic 
members of the Senate of the United States, that the plurality of tiie 
vote of New York was really for Mr. Blaine, and that he was unjustly 
deprived of election by the fraud at Long Island City by which votes 
cast for the Butler Electoral Ticket were counted for Cleveland. 

The pre-election campaign, of course, was under direction 



86 THE NORTH AMERICAN' REVIEW 

of the National Committee, comprising several Democratic 
Senators, but neither these Senators- nor any one else had 
authentic information, except from., or through me and my 
associates, as to the details of the post-election canvass, and 
I. deny absolutely and unreservedly*- that " the vote of New 
York was really for Mr. Blaine " and ] that he was unjustly 
deprived of election by fraud either "at Long Island City," 
the one locality specified by Senator Hoar, or "in many 
precincts in i New York City," as charged by Mr. Stanwood, 
who candidly admits that at the time " Democrats warmly 
denied it:" 

Twenty years after by Senator Hoar and thirty years 
after by Mr. Stanwood is rather late for the reproduction 
of these unfounded charges, and it may be fortunate that 
there are yet remaining some who are able to demonstrate 
that they are unfounded. To this demonstration I shall 
now address myself. 

For the purposes of convenient consideration the single 
specification of Senator Hoar and the several insinuations 
of Mr. Stanwood may be combined and classified as follows: 

(1) That the counting was in the hands of Mr. Blaine's 
opponents. 

(2) 'That Butler votes were counted for Cleveland (a) in 
many precincts of New York City, (?>) iiiiLong Island City. 

(3) That an unscrupulous boss of a town near New York 
was convicted .a few years later of falsifying election re- 
turns. . 

These are the. three and the only three points on which 
either Mr; Stanwood or: Senator Hoar rests his charge. 

1. As to Mr. Stanwood 's first point that " the counting 
was in the hands of Mr. Blaine's opponents ": 

This certainly was not so as to the country districts, nor 
was it so as to the New York City* districts. 

In every New York City district there were four election 
inspectors, of whom two were Republicans and two were 
Democrats. But of these Democrats most, if not all, were 
nominated, by the Tammany organization, which had been 
bitterly opposed to the nomination of Cleveland and was re- 
ferred to in General Bragg 's famous declaration, " But 
mostof all, we love him for the enemies that he has made." 
The Chief of the Bureau of Elections was John J. O'Brien, 
a partisan Republican. The Police Board was bi-partisan, 
under the control of a TammaD3 r -Republican combination 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE STOLEN? 87 

which at that very time was in full operation ousting Joel 
W. Mason, a conservative Republican, so as to put in John 
MeClave, more satisfactory to both machines. To any one 
acquainted with the local political situation in New York 
in the autumn of 1884 ihe suggestion that the election 
machinery was in the hands of "Mr. Blaine's opponents " 
(a phrase which is meaningless unless intended to mean 
Mr. Cleveland ? s friends) ;is iiitterly absurd. 

The Cleveland managers were in great anxiety as to the 
purposes and the conduct of this Tammany-Republican com- 
bination, and its control of the election machinery " : in New 
York City, and, as presently will be seen, they took efficient 
measures to ascertain and to guarantee the accuracy of ithe 
official canvass, notwithstanding the anti-Cleveland control. 

The country conditions were even more perilou-s to ISilv. 
Cleveland ; that is, upon the theory of Mr. Stanwood in hk 
letter, that the counting was in the hands of :the friends 
of Mr. Cleveland. 

Of the sixty New 'York counties, forty-six were for Mr. 
Blaine, giving him 68,423 plurality over Mr. Cleveland. Be- 
sides New York, Kings, and Westchester, Mr. Cleveland 
carried eleven courifies. In these eleven Cleveland rural 
counties were 397-election districts as against 1,766 districts 
in the forty-six rural counties for Mr. Blaine, who would 
have been elected by a change averaging less than* one wote 
in each 'Blaine district. Naturally, in view of the memories 
of 1876, much alarm was felt by the Cleveland ifriends at 
Albany who -sent out the call in Mr. Manning 's'name/" The 
only hope of our opponents is in a fraudulent count in (the 
country districts," and -at our New York headquarters, 
where we collected as splendid a body of young lawyers *as 
ever assembled and ^sent 'them out two by ,two It© \wattch 
the canvass in every doubtful county. 

Similar precautions were 'taken by the Republicans, .-as 
printed in the Tribune of Monday, November lQth.: 

The Committee have made preparations to have the canvass closely 
watched in every county of the State. Careful inquiry will be made into 
the matter of votes cast for Butler or St. John electors being counted 
for Cleveland. 

Never was a canvass watched more closely on both sides, 
nor one conducted more fairly than that of 1884 in all the 
counties of New York. This 'was recognized a't the time bv 



88 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 

both the State and the National Republican Committees. In 
the Tribune of November 8th the State Committee declared 
that it did not make any wholesale charges of fraud, but 
stated simply that " the canvass will be watched with care," 
and on the 9th the National Committee announced that 

The Republicans are taking the most careful and thorough measures 
to ascertain errors, if any have been made, and frauds, if any have been 
committed, in the returns of the late election in the State of New York. 

This supervision and these measures by both Republican 
Committees, fully awake and forewarned, never eventuated 
in any charge whatever. This certainly would not have 
been the case had there been even plausible grounds upon 
which to challenge the perfect accuracy of the official can- 
vass. It was a lack of votes, not a theft of votes, that lost 
the State to Blaine. As Secretary W. E. Chandler said to 
me at the close of Cleveland's Inauguration Parade, 
" That's all very fine, but I wish that we had had one 
thousand more votes in New York." 

Out of a like disappointment Mr. Blaine's kinsman, parti- 
san, and biographer has permitted to emerge a cruel impu- 
tation upon the fairness of this election in the State of New 
York, unworthy of his own high character, and refuted upon 
even slight examination of the events and the contempo- 
raneous records of 1884. 

2. The charge that the Butler votes were counted for 
Cleveland (a) in many precincts of New York City and (b) 
in Long Island City: 

(a) As to the New York City canvass as charged by Mr. 
Stanwood, the first suggestion of this kind was brought to 
me on Thursday, November 6th, by my old-time friend Tal- 
cott Williams, then connected with the Press of Philadel- 
phia, from which city he had come over to New York, sin- 
cerely believing that such a transposition of Butler votes 
had been made to Cleveland to the detriment of Blaine, 
whom the Press was supporting with ardor. I told him that 
there was no reason to believe that there had been any such 
transposition, but that I would start an investigation, whioh 
I proceeded to do through a distinguished committee 
selected by me. The result of my action is reported in the 
Tribune of Saturday, November 8th : 

Yesterday a self-appointed committee of Cleveland men, consisting of 
Aaron J. Vanderpoel, General F. C. Barlow, Albert Stickney, and Charles 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE STOLEN? 89 

P. Miller, insisted upon the opening of the election returns filed with the 
Bureau of Elections. Judge Barrett ordered the returns opened, under 
Sec. 1878 of the Election Law of 1882, ch. 410. 

The envelopes were opened by the Republican Chief of 
Bureau, John J. O'Brien, in presence of the Republican 
Committee. John E. Brodsky, William H. Townley, and 
Colonel George Bliss. No one cognizant of New York per- 
sonalities will suppose that any Republican points were 
overlooked by this committee. The disclosures were as 
stated in the Tribune of Sunday, November 9th : 

Police returns were compared by Albert Stickney for Democrats and 
John E. Brodsky for Republicans, and showed Cleveland plurality 42,801 
(the final figures were 43,064), or 425 less than last computation from 
police copies. President S. B. French and D. C. Wheeler (each a Re- 
publican Commissioner of Police) thought this difference might prove 
important, and went uptown to give information to Republican National 
Committee. 

Thereupon the matter was referred to the official canvass 
to begin on Wednesday, November 12th. How little doubt 
was felt as to the sufficient supervision of the canvasses 
was indicated by the following editorial in the Tribune of 
November 10th : 

The whole canvass must be conducted with the utmost openness and 
under the most rigid legal scrutiny, with resort to the proper courts when- 
ever necessary. Then if the fair count gives Governor Cleveland a plu- 
rality of only a single vote, he will be inaugurated. 

The actual conduct of the canvass under competent Re- 
publican counsel is shown by the following extracts from 
the Tribune, November 13th: 

Actual canvass of the city vote began yesterday. Colonel George Bliss, 
Robert Sewell, Clarence A. Seward, and John E. Brodsky closely watched 
the return for the Republicans. Precautions have been taken to prevent 
any tampering with the returns or corrupting inspectors of election. In- 
spector Byrnes was present all day. He had a force of men in plain 
clothes. No suspicious actions were reported. 

The particular point of transposition of Butler votes was 
brought up in the canvass on November 15th. And the fol- 
lowing allusion, while remote and indirect, seems to be the 
only reference in the count proceedings to the alleged trans- 
position. It was reported, in the Tribune of the 16th: 

When the defective return of the Sixth Election District of the Seventh 
Assembly District was taken up, it was found that the inspectoi'S instead 
of setting down the number of the ballots (395) cast for Presidential 
Electors had multiplied that (395) by 36, thus counting the votes for each 



90 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 

elector on the several tickets as ballots. By this method it was made 
to appear that there were 

7,668 votes for Blaine 
6,300 " " Cleveland 
180 " " Butler 
72 " « St. John 

36)14,220(395 

Thus, it may be reiterated, there was attributed to a dis- 
trict in which there were only 395 votes, the amazing and 
erroneous total of 14,220 votes! 

This would have elected Blaine by a large majority. The 
following colloquy ensued : 

John N. Lewis: That's what the Republicans have been claiming the 
election of Blaine on! (Laughter.) 

Mr. Duffy (to Colonel Bliss) : You get a little the best of us there. 

Colonel Bliss: Yes, I insist upon it, that the Inspectors cannot alter 
the returns. 

Thus the fiction was exploded with a loud guffaw from 
both sides; and it received no further consideration from 
either side during the progress of the canvass. 

Upon November 16th the Tribune observed, editorially: 

In this city an exaggerated idea of the number of defective ballots im- 
properly rejected seems to have been adopted because of the occasional 
report of " thirty-six defective " when the inspectors really meant " one 
defective with thirty-six names on it." Elsewhere many still think Butler 
votes were counted for Cleveland, but, with the ballots destroyed, the 
canvass did not establish it. 

Upon this record must disappear Mr. Stanwood's insinua- 
tions as to the New York City canvass of Butler votes as 
though for Cleveland. 

(b) As to the Long Island City frauds imagined by Sen- 
ator Hoar. 

No evidence whatever is offered to support this particular 
charge, and there is no reason to suppose that the conditions 
in Long Island City are more open to suspicion than those 
in New York already indicated. But in any aspect the total 
vote was so small as to be negligible. Cleveland received 
2,092; Blaine, 1,265; Butler, 99, and St. John, 27. Butler's 
vote here approximated five per cent, of Cleveland's vote, 
while in the State at large (excluding New York City) But- 
ler's vote was less than four per cent, of Cleveland's vote. 
If we reject all of Cleveland's plurality of 727 over Blaine, 
Cleveland still would have been elected, though by a narrow 



WAS NEW YORK'S VOTE STOLEN? 91 

plurality. The canvass of the Long Island City vote was 
watched closely in behalf of the Republicans by the late 
Jesse Johnson, one of the most alert and capable of lawyers 
and most zealous of Republicans at the Brooklyn Bar, whose 
vigilant observation no wrong-doing could have escaped. 

This sole specification of Senator Hoar, therefore, is of 
no consequence, and his suspicions generated by baseless 
and treacherous rumors are unworthy of his reputation for 
serious work, where partisan considerations were not con- 
trolling an otherwise interesting and able intellect, 

3. The crowning absurdity is reached in Mr. Stanwood's 
conclusion that the conviction some years later of Boss 
McKane, for election frauds at Gravesend, affords ground 
for belief that previously similar frauds there in 1884 had 
carried the State for Cleveland. 

Here, also, the vote was too small to affect the result. 
Cleveland received 667; Blaine, 295; and Butler, 1. Here 
again, if Cleveland's plurality (372) were disregarded, the 
final result would not be changed. The vote was canvassed 
under the vigilant attention of United States Attorney Ten- 
ney representing the Republicans. 

The willingness of Boss McKane to commit any election 
fraud for Democrats may be recognized as fully as the fact 
of universal frauds by all parties in Adams County, Ohio, 
or as charged by Colonel Roosevelt upon the regular Repub- 
lican organization in 1912, but we have high Republican 
authority for declaring that all such remote frauds are 
aliunde. 

The whole case may be summed up by considering that 
in the very nature of things the wonder is that New York 
gave Cleveland a plurality so small rather than a large ma- 
jority. New York naturally was a Democratic State. From 
1867 to 1892, inclusive, a period of twenty-five years, the 
State went Republican only six times. In 1 882 it had gone for 
Cleveland by 192,000, and in 1883 generally by about 16,000 
Democratic. Therefore, it was strange that in New York 
City Cleveland's plurality of 43,064 in 1884 exceeded by 
^less than 2,000 that of Hancock in 1880. The surprise was 
the size of the vote given not for Cleveland, but for Blaine. 
As was observed editorially in the Tribune of November 
14th, ' ' Right in this city, the very center of the Independent 
strength, Mr. Blaine received a vote several thousand larger 
than was ever before given to any Republican." This ex- 



92 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 

ceptional tribute to Mr. Blaine in New York City and New 
York State should have attracted the appreciation of Sen- 
ator Hoar and Mr. Stanwood, and they should have been 
too manly to base their regrets that their candidate failed 
of election upon the suggestion not that votes intended for 
him were diverted, but that Butler votes against Blaine 
might not have been counted for Butler, there being con- 
cededly no evidence to support this suggestion. The New 
York result in 1884 was legally and accurately ascertained 
under the most careful scrutiny, and the method and result 
of the ascertainment reflected credit upon the State. The 
proper attitude with respect thereto was that of Mr. Blaine's 
constant supporter, the Tribune, and is not that of Mr. Stan- 
wood or Senator Hoar. 

In closing it may be interesting to observe how little of 
the actual conduct and condition of the election or of the 
canvass was known to the candidates themselves. 

Upon November 13th I received from Colonel Lamont the 
following message: 

Dear Stetson, — We don't get any news from New York, and you can 
well imagine that we are all very anxious for news. Would it be possible 
for you to give us a telegram as each Assembly District is completed? 
We get all sorts of rumors through the day, and have to wait for actual 
news until we see the New York papers the next morning. If you can 
lelegraph me anything in a general way of your impression as soon as 
you receive this it would be greatly appreciated. No one telegraphs us, 
and it has seemed to me that since you are on the ground no one can give 
us the news so quickly. Sincerely youi's, 

Daniel S. Lamont. 

Albany, Nov. 13, 1884. 

Upon November 16th, the Augusta correspondent of the^ 
Boston Journal disclosed a similar isolation on the part of 
Mr. Blaine: 

I asked Mr. Blaine what he thought of the result of the count in 
New York, and he replied that he had no more means of knowing than 
an unborn child. 

The conclusion of the whole matter is that New York's 
vote was not stolen in 1884 ; that none of the principals had 
reason to suppose that it was stolen ; that at the time no re- 
sponsible person or paper adhered to the charge that it was 
stolen ; and that these facts are attested by evidence still in 
existence and readily accessible. 

Francis Lynde Stetson. 



